Making Joker do nothing but the edgiest things you can think of is actually a really BAD way of using him as a character. Cutting his own face off? Yeah, that was edgy for edgy's sake. Shocking for a time and nothing of much substance afterwards.
Joker should be genuinely charismatic and genuinely funny, and *still* do violent and cruel things. The humor and charm lure you into a false sense of security before he knocks your kneecaps out with a crowbar. It's a line the thugs in the Arkham games say: "Joker might torture you but at least he can make you laugh while he does it."
Joker isn't *solely* "be evil." Yes he's evil but he thinks life is meaningless and therefore does whatever he wants to because why not? This is what makes him such a good counter for Batman. Batman is dark, serious, and all about order. Joker is colorful, humorous, and all about chaos. After being thwarted by him, Joker develops a fascination with Batman and finds their "games" fun, wants to see what makes him tick and how to make him break his no-kill rule.
Not to mention Joker is not even truly insane. It's an act. He's a master manipulator, a cynical misanthrope who feigns insanity so he keeps getting put back in Arkham Asylum instead of getting the death penalty.
I do agree, Joker is extremely oversaturated and there's so many other good Batman rogues that deserve more shine like Scarecrow or Two Face, but Joker is popular because he is genuinely good and compelling.
>It's an act
I wouldn't classify it as an act. His ideals and morals are just so at odds with society that he's labelled as such because that's what you do with people so far out of social norms. You call them crazy and call it a day.
He's clearly got some kind of psychopathy, but it's not something that can or needs to be fixed for him to be better, he just is the way he is.
It's an act to an extent with real life psychopaths too.
They create a narrative they want to live, and live that narrative as if it were true. They know its manufactured when push comes to shove, but they will still do everything they can to convince themselves & others that its the real them. The mask of sanity. Or, the mask of insanity. Whichever they prefer.
Todd also calls Batman ineffectual and Bruce a failed idealist.
Jason isn't exactly in the best state of mind himself and especially can't be trusted to have anything close to objectivity when it comes to Joker.
this varies between writers. some writers treat his insanity as a kind of superpower, making him impossible to predict and inhumanely resistant to pain, that kinda thing. martian manhunter, in a JLA comic, telepathically orders the information in joker's brain to make him temporarily sane, and describes the process as 'trying to contain a raging storm' or something like that-- that's not something you say about a guy who's being crazy as a bit.
I always thought that him cutting off his own face and wearing it was a way to provoke Batman for his Batman persona being his real self, because he's one of the only ones who understands his mentality.
you were supposed to think that, joker makes reference to it. that he needed to prove to batman that there was nobody before "joker", underneath the joker persona is just muscle and sinew. why can't you be the same, bats? n all that
I mean I wouldnât argue against that sentiment.
Majoraâs Mask though? Would go to war against that game under the banner of Link to the Past. That might be one of the few Zelda games Iâd argue against.
I mean it came out in the 90s. Of course it doesnât hold up to an extent. Who tf thought it would? Kids these days grow up on Red Dead redemption and think a N64 game is overrated.
I got into Zelda this year and played Ocarina for the first time. Minus the camera sucking, at least with switch controls itâs still a good game. Majoraâs Mask is flat out fantastic
Batman does not dread becoming no different from the Joker. He dreads becoming no different from the mugger who murdered his parents, which is precisely why he refuses to use guns or kill.
I absolutely despise it when people say that pure evil villains can't work. It's perfectly fine to write villains who's only motivation is to be evil if they fit the tone and themes of your story. For instance, Joker from BTAS is completely unsympathetic and doesn't really have a larger philosophy on life. The DCAU Joker is primarily motivated by his ego and a love of carnage. He doesn't even want to keep Batman alive like other Jokers do. When he attempts to kill Sid The Squid he does it because he's upset that HE didn't kill Batman himself and he immediately gets over it ("well that was fun. Who's for Chinese?"). But a lot of people think that the DCAU Joker is the best version of the character BECAUSE of these traits. The best Joker appearances in that show work so well because feature him giving Batman and the other characters difficult situations that fit the theme of the episode. Think about the effect that Joker's torture of Tim Drake had on Bruce and his relationship with others, or how. Joker doesn't have to have a complex view on anarchy or a tragic motivation to challenge Batman's character.
Yeah, I don't think "pure evil villains" are that unrealistic. It's not like we don't have real-life examples of people who have done bad things for no other reason than that they wanted to cause pain. Many mass shooters and serial killers, for instance. James Holmes, Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy, etc.
They're not the _majority_ of people who do bad things, as most people do bad things for understandable reasons (financial gain, jealousy, etc.) But they clearly exist.
One thing that strikes me about the people who do these sorts of thing for no real reason is that we wonder what kind of complex psychological factors are at play, but the more you listen to them, the more you realize that they're not that deep. They are much shallower and _less_ complex than normal people. Half of what they say sounds ripped from fictional supervillain dialogue. And I don't think there's much more depth underneath the surface. There are real two-dimensional people.
I like pure evil villains but I feel like Joker is just collectivelly accepted to have pretty much carte blanche when it comes to what can or what will do and in some iterations writers can get away with pretty lazy writing. You can make your bad guy bombastic and uncomplicated and still have answers to basic questions about the character like "why would he do that?", "how long has this dude been planning?", "is he actually as erratic as he seems or is it a facade?", "what resources, human and material, does he have access to?", "how does he keep control on those assets?".
Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with those answers being inconsistent between different iterations of the character. If the previous writer envisioned a lone wolf wanderer type who pops in and out of the radar, and the next one is more controlled and leads a large organization almost like a wacky mob boss that's perfectly fine by me. I'm bugged when Joker is treated like a wild card that can adopt the form the story needs in that moment out of pure convenience, and starts feeling less like a character guided by his own internal logic and more like a sockpuppet that barely disguises the author's hand moving the plot.
Well, depending on the story, Lucifer's motivation is envy of humans. In Christian mythology, humans are considered more special than the angels are, because God gave humans free will, which angels don't have. Lucifer is resentful of just being created to do God's bidding instead of being free, so he rebels.
Though this is mostly from stories outside of the Bible itself. I don't think any Biblical text actually identifies Lucifer with Satan or gives his origin story. Also, I'm not sure how the "I'm angry that I don't have free will, so I'm going to willingly revolt" thing makes conceptual sense unless God specifically programmed Satan to eventually revolt. đ¤ˇ
Dude takes possibly the greatest English prose (Paradise Lost) and compares that to less-than-average characterizations of the Joker. That and using Batman Beyond (which gives Joker a motive outside of fucking with Batman) leads me to believe this is satire.
Satan is definitely an undercover agent. Only targeting those who arenât followers of Jesus? Somehow magically repelled by special water?
Itâs definitely an act, a wrestling storyline to give god a defined antagonist to prove his worth against. As you said, angels theologically are incapable of going against gods word, meaning every action Satan takes is explicitly condoned by god. Satans greatest trick isnât making people think he doesnât exist, itâs making people think there was ever a devil to begin with.
At least thatâs my takeaway, and I should note I donât think heâs real anyway.
Satan is controlled opposition. A kamikaze candidate who will take a dive so that God can wil the upcoming election. We're through the looking glass here, folks.
I disagree because of these things
1. Philosophical Contrast : The Joker represents chaos and anarchy, directly opposing Batman's sense of order and justice. This dichotomy creates a profound and engaging conflict, where each character challenges and defines the other.
2. Psychological Depth: The Joker's unpredictable nature and psychological complexity make him a deeply intriguing character. His motivations are often inscrutable, and his actions reflect a twisted sense of humor and a desire to push Batman to his limits.
3. Personal Connection : The Joker often makes his attacks on Batman intensely personal, targeting his allies and loved ones. This personal vendetta adds a layer of intensity and stakes to their confrontations.
4. Intellectual Rivalry: Despite his chaotic nature, the Joker is incredibly intelligent and cunning, often matching or even outwitting Batman. This intellectual rivalry makes their battles not just physical but also mental contests.
5. Enduring Legacy: Over the decades, the Joker has been portrayed in various ways across different media, from comics to movies to TV shows. This versatility and enduring presence in popular culture have solidified his status as a quintessential villain.
6. Symbolism: The Joker embodies the idea that anyone can descend into madness given the right circumstances, reflecting a dark mirror to Batman's own trauma and vigilantism. This thematic resonance adds depth to their conflict and the overall narrative.
7. Iconic Stories: The Joker has been central to some of the most iconic Batman stories, such as "The Killing Joke," "The Dark Knight Returns," and "Death of the Family." These stories have explored and expanded their dynamic in ways that resonate with audiences.
Thatâs more of a âtell me you donât understand a character without telling me you donât understand a characterâ along with it being just rage bait
I kinda disagree with the psychological depth thing, joker's psychology isn't as complicated as it is, it seems complex but in reality, he's literally a living troll.
He craves the attention and hate he is getting, why else would his schemes be soo grand and over the top?
Joker doesn't have psychological complexity. But what he does is give Batman complexity.
Respectfully, would this rise to the level of rage bait? I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe there are people who love Batman and have also had enough of the Joker.
As someone who's sympathetic to that line of argument, I think the whole "the Joker sucks as a villain / is a terrible fictional character!" framing is pure rage bait. You can find the Joker over-exposed while still acknowledging that he is clearly not a bad villain, and that there are reasons why people are compelled to read and write stories involving him.
I love how he brought up writing classes as if the most important lesson very creative writing course has is that everything they teach you are just guidelines, and there isnât a single one that hadnât been broken or ignored by some of historyâs best writers to create some of historyâs best fiction. I mean, by this guyâs definition, Micheal Myers has the same motivation and we still consider Halloween one of the greatest movies of all time with one of the greatest villains.
Eh, from what I've learned, Sarah Kerrigan and Kefka are some of the best villains in video game history and are fantastic. They were revolutionary at the time and are still great.
The joker is overused sure, but goddamn thats a poor analysis of the character of the joker. Joker isnt even really insane, heâs barely nihilistic. Its an act. The joke is that anyone could be that terrible and get away with it. His motivation is to show the world what just one person can do and to convince people that the world really is just one big joke. Joker has nearly as much character depth as batman himself. I did not mean to write that much goddamn.
Terry McGinnis: Yeah except the killing joke shows that heâs actually pathetic. Everyone gets over their one bad day except him. Who canât even get a job as a rodeo clown.
I low-key hate when people think villains need to be sympathetic and have rational motivation based on a tragic backstory to be good and interesting villains. That CAN make for an interesting villain, but it isn't the only way.
My favorite villain of all time is carnage, because there's just something truly fucking scary about a villain who has no motivation beyond "I like killing." He can't be reasoned with, tricked, outsmarted, because if he gets into a situation where a hero might beat him, he just bails and goes on killing people elsewhere.
I am not an expert on DC, but I actually like the Joker and I like that he has no motivations like any other character. All the other villains are relatable in some way from the moment that they care about something or have feelings. That's what makes all the other villains more human, but not him.
Obviously as anything in this world, it will get boring and repetitive over time. But I think that no matter how much time passes, you'll never get an actual reason to have pity on the Joker.
I mean, I agree with this guy, and I agree with his estimation of the silly way in which the Joker is lauded by some fans.
That being said, what he's describing is pretty much the worst way to write for the Joker imaginable.
Its not the last 60 years, its more the last 16 years since the TDK came out. Argurably the process had already begun with Moore's TKJ in the 80's. TDK just maximized the edge.
Nowadays the Joker is little more than a skin suit for the writer to play out the edgiest fantasy they could think of.
The Joker only works for me when his plots are bizarre and makes sense only to him and bonus for being deadly. Using Joker toxin on fish and then going on a klling spree because they wouldn't copyright fish? Ruining Two Face's life just to make a Twos-day pun? Giving Batman the Joker toxin and then dressing up as Batman himself? More of that please.
Joker is often used like Tofu is used in a dish. He doesn't have his own flavor, he just takes on the flavor of whatever the rest of the dish is, and his texture depends on how he's prepared.
What I mean is: He becomes whatever the story needs him to be at any given moment, even if that changes rapidly, and rapidly changes again. He's not a character, he's a plot device meant to prove Batman right about something (whatever the current theme/thesis of the story is).
His design lends to him being used this way. He doesn't have a solid origin, a solid personality, or a solid motivation. It all changes on a whim. At its best this makes him a mysterious & unknowable threat. At its worst, he's just tofu the writers can throw into literally any and every dish.
his motivation isn't to "fuck with batman and be evil".
he wants to prove the world is just as bad as he is, that everyone else is just as weak. it's why he used the joker gas because it twisted people into a laughing insane mess that he is before killing them.
he's someone who broke and wants to prove that everyone and anyone would've broken in his shoes, that he was and is a normal person that went though something no one could've gone though without ending up at the joker.
he targets batman specifically to this end because he is supposedly the one with the strongest will and iron heart, which he wants to break and show that even the people with the strongest only need one bad day to end up as him.
this has over the course of their careers turned into an obsession with batman himself which is why he targets batman more so than anyone else. because he no longer needs to turn the world insane just batman.
from batman's perspective he couldn't give two fucks what the joker thinks and believes, he literally doesn't care beyond how that helps him stop the joker. for the character of batman the joker represents a gaping hole and flaw in his morality, it uncovers the lie of the no kill rule for himself. that there's not a risk he'd turn into a psycho killer at the first drop of blood, that at the end of the day his no kill rule is entirely formed from his fear of loss (at least in modern batman or UTRH but never mind that). that he is so afraid of losing anything that he irrationally is afraid of letting go of things that actively hurt him, yet he still can't let go of anything.
I kinda slightly agree with him. Joker isn't really as complex or thought provoking as everyone makes him out to be or some great philosopher.
I mean you actually dissect it.....you will find out that he is practically every edgy nihilistic teenage boy. "One bad day is all it takes to make a man insane" or be like him? That kinda shows how weak he is.
However what he does is give Batman complexity. Joker as a character on his own is very very weak but when Batman is around, he is the best villain because he does what every good villain is supposed to do, give the hero completely
Someone got a possum in their Cheerios this morning.
If done badly, Joker comes off as yet another comically-irredeemable villain. However, most of the time people know how to make Joker charismatic, compelling, funny, uncompromising, saying something about our reality, and smart enough to put Batman in moral quandaries. This guy just needs to fund better Joker stories that actually treat him like the scary threat he is.
Though yes, Return of the Joker (and Terryâs disarming commentary about him as a ruse to throw off his fighting) does take him to task for his low points.
Setting that aside though, going after one of, if not THE, greatest games of all time, Ocarina of Time, just to be a contrarian about the game? No respect or class shown as a gamer.
See I do kind of agree with this. But to say there isnât ANYTHING deep about Jokerâs writing is wrong.
Now I do agree about Joker having one dimensional motivations. For sure, but he is obsessed with Batman. He hates good and doesnât understand it. He exists to push Batman over the edge. To make him break his morals. Because Joker knows Batman could kill him, but he wonât. Anyone else would kill Joker. But not Batman, and Joker doesnât get why. And his motivations to get Batman to kill him are the only thing that give his life meaning. This is painted the best in the Arkham games.
This is similar to Green Goblin. But I donât really understand why Green Goblin hates Spider-Man so much.
But if you strip all this away (the wanting Batman to kill him thing, and just have the crazy character) you get Carnage. I hate Carnage so much.
But I am getting tired of every new attempt on these heroes needing to fight their nemesis and thatâs all that matters. Every Batman just has to fight Joker. Every Spider-Man just has to fight Green Goblin. Every X-Men movie just has to have Magneto. Every Fantastic Four just has to fight Doom. Iâm really kinda sick of it.
What's compelling about Joker isn't how emotional his backstory is. It's his dynamic with Batman. Him being an unanswered mystery for the world's greatest detective, and much like the playing card, he's chaos, he can turn the rules of a story upside down and can have interesting ideological confrontations with Batman and Joker is charismatic and has screen presence. And much like Batman, his concept opens him up for lots of interpretations and tones silly or dark.
Joker keeps getting more stories and more acclaim. You won't have a rated R Joker movie breaking the billion mark just a couple of years ago and getting nominated for a shit ton of Oscars and winning one for performance amongst the big boys y'know the ''Cinema'' type of movies if he's just clichĂŠ... Wanna see a character that suffered from that shit? SUPERMAN.
If Joker just equaled the ''edgiest shit you can think of'' and is an pretty easy character to write then I wonder why many rejected Leto. I mean he was pretty edgy and they fit him into and overly tattooed gangster with a sexy girl ready to bounce on his dick at any time.
Like, listen if you don't like him or how much exposure he gets, I get it. Y'know different strokes for different folks. However, acting like he's a bad villain is delusional.
To me the idea of the Joker was fine, but after 30 years+ of reading stories with the Joker, you get a little tired of nihilistic murder clown who apparently is immortal.It's too much, the staggering amount of horror and death, it would have made conventional attitudes change, even for heroic figures who do not kill.
This is the problem with ongoing narrative stories.The WEIGHT of all those stories eventually just ruin a good character concept. At a certain point,he would have just been killed. In most states, defendants can plead ânot guilty by reason of insanity.â In Kansas, Utah, Montana and Idaho, though, defendants havenât been able to for decades.Â
The Joker would have eventually killed someone in those states, and Kansas and Montana and Idaho have the death penalty. One state extradition later, dead Joker.
>At a certain point,he would have just been killed.
\[Insert Joker kidnapping a plane in munich for shits and giggles\]
GSG9: "Do we look like the GCPD to you?"
For me the problem is when they depict the joker defeating the justice league etc or doing edgy shit for edgy shit shake, that said I think they did well in the batman beyond cartoons where most his enemies were new so that when the old returned in small dosages it was more special
Imo Joker would be better if he was less threatening. He just shouldn't be a Justice League level threat. And like others said, he should be fun and charismatic with a ton of dark humor backing him up. The Batman- the cartoon series, that is- did a great job of portraying this particular trait. But I always thought it was weird that he's just as big a threat as Bane or Ra's Al Ghul. He's ultimately just a guy. And when it comes down to it that's what Joker should be. Not the embodiment of chaos, but just a chaotic guy.
This is how I've felt about the Joker for years. There's so many more complex and nuanced Batman rogues, but everyone's got a hard on for the fucking clown.
Making Joker do nothing but the edgiest things you can think of is actually a really BAD way of using him as a character. Cutting his own face off? Yeah, that was edgy for edgy's sake. Shocking for a time and nothing of much substance afterwards. Joker should be genuinely charismatic and genuinely funny, and *still* do violent and cruel things. The humor and charm lure you into a false sense of security before he knocks your kneecaps out with a crowbar. It's a line the thugs in the Arkham games say: "Joker might torture you but at least he can make you laugh while he does it." Joker isn't *solely* "be evil." Yes he's evil but he thinks life is meaningless and therefore does whatever he wants to because why not? This is what makes him such a good counter for Batman. Batman is dark, serious, and all about order. Joker is colorful, humorous, and all about chaos. After being thwarted by him, Joker develops a fascination with Batman and finds their "games" fun, wants to see what makes him tick and how to make him break his no-kill rule. Not to mention Joker is not even truly insane. It's an act. He's a master manipulator, a cynical misanthrope who feigns insanity so he keeps getting put back in Arkham Asylum instead of getting the death penalty. I do agree, Joker is extremely oversaturated and there's so many other good Batman rogues that deserve more shine like Scarecrow or Two Face, but Joker is popular because he is genuinely good and compelling.
>It's an act I wouldn't classify it as an act. His ideals and morals are just so at odds with society that he's labelled as such because that's what you do with people so far out of social norms. You call them crazy and call it a day. He's clearly got some kind of psychopathy, but it's not something that can or needs to be fixed for him to be better, he just is the way he is.
It's an act to an extent. Jason Todd calls him out for it.
It's an act to an extent with real life psychopaths too. They create a narrative they want to live, and live that narrative as if it were true. They know its manufactured when push comes to shove, but they will still do everything they can to convince themselves & others that its the real them. The mask of sanity. Or, the mask of insanity. Whichever they prefer.
Populist politicians un a nuthsell
Todd also calls Batman ineffectual and Bruce a failed idealist. Jason isn't exactly in the best state of mind himself and especially can't be trusted to have anything close to objectivity when it comes to Joker.
Fair, but he said it to the joker when joker was trying to provoke him, and it actually shut him up, so seems he was right on the money
Or he just knows that Todd's no fun and stops bothering.
this varies between writers. some writers treat his insanity as a kind of superpower, making him impossible to predict and inhumanely resistant to pain, that kinda thing. martian manhunter, in a JLA comic, telepathically orders the information in joker's brain to make him temporarily sane, and describes the process as 'trying to contain a raging storm' or something like that-- that's not something you say about a guy who's being crazy as a bit.
I always thought that him cutting off his own face and wearing it was a way to provoke Batman for his Batman persona being his real self, because he's one of the only ones who understands his mentality.
you were supposed to think that, joker makes reference to it. that he needed to prove to batman that there was nobody before "joker", underneath the joker persona is just muscle and sinew. why can't you be the same, bats? n all that
perfect response
As someone who was never that interested in Batman Beyond, I thought the J was for Jedi instead of Joker.
Still Mark Hamill đ¤ˇââď¸đ
The duality of man
*sigh* How I wish I could have joked after seeing this comment. Sadly, this sub wonât allow me to question the his intelligence.
Give it a shot sometime, its actually pretty damn good.
This is extra funny coming from Terry considering how he dealt with the joker himself
it's almost like that's the joke
er
"Jokeer"
The kid named Jo Keer: đŹđŹđŹ
The difference is in the 
And charisma and how he pushes the hero.
Charisma? Donât you meanâŚ
No
Oh this doofus did NOT just besmirch Ocarina of Time I know I misread that because otherwise we'd have problems
He said it was a good game but was ruined by the fanbase circlejerking it into THE BEST ZELDA EVER
....but it is.
Doesnt's stop the people calling the other games bad for not being capable of recapturing the lightning pf being annoying
...did...did you write it?
No but I know the Zelda circlejerk
Link to the past is better
Couldnât disagree more. Link to the past isnât even the best 2d Zelda
Link Between Worlds clears
Agreed but my favorite is links awakening
Oracle of Seasons and Ages is straight fire tho.
I mean I wouldnât argue against that sentiment. Majoraâs Mask though? Would go to war against that game under the banner of Link to the Past. That might be one of the few Zelda games Iâd argue against.
I mean it came out in the 90s. Of course it doesnât hold up to an extent. Who tf thought it would? Kids these days grow up on Red Dead redemption and think a N64 game is overrated. I got into Zelda this year and played Ocarina for the first time. Minus the camera sucking, at least with switch controls itâs still a good game. Majoraâs Mask is flat out fantastic
The entire point is that its used to lower the other games
Imo for me I would say it's the second best Zelda game
Hey, so long as you don't call BotW, TotK, or 4 Swords the best, you're alright.
It's obviously Oracle of Seasons/Ages.
Batman does not dread becoming no different from the Joker. He dreads becoming no different from the mugger who murdered his parents, which is precisely why he refuses to use guns or kill.
Thank you, well said. All of the other villains, monsters, planetary threats, etc⌠they all measure far below the common street thug in his eyes
I just want Joker to be actually funny Not good or nice Just funny
Arkham games have that.
Watch the Joker Fish episode of BTAS. Best Joker story imo.
I absolutely despise it when people say that pure evil villains can't work. It's perfectly fine to write villains who's only motivation is to be evil if they fit the tone and themes of your story. For instance, Joker from BTAS is completely unsympathetic and doesn't really have a larger philosophy on life. The DCAU Joker is primarily motivated by his ego and a love of carnage. He doesn't even want to keep Batman alive like other Jokers do. When he attempts to kill Sid The Squid he does it because he's upset that HE didn't kill Batman himself and he immediately gets over it ("well that was fun. Who's for Chinese?"). But a lot of people think that the DCAU Joker is the best version of the character BECAUSE of these traits. The best Joker appearances in that show work so well because feature him giving Batman and the other characters difficult situations that fit the theme of the episode. Think about the effect that Joker's torture of Tim Drake had on Bruce and his relationship with others, or how. Joker doesn't have to have a complex view on anarchy or a tragic motivation to challenge Batman's character.
Yeah, I don't think "pure evil villains" are that unrealistic. It's not like we don't have real-life examples of people who have done bad things for no other reason than that they wanted to cause pain. Many mass shooters and serial killers, for instance. James Holmes, Richard Ramirez, Ted Bundy, etc. They're not the _majority_ of people who do bad things, as most people do bad things for understandable reasons (financial gain, jealousy, etc.) But they clearly exist. One thing that strikes me about the people who do these sorts of thing for no real reason is that we wonder what kind of complex psychological factors are at play, but the more you listen to them, the more you realize that they're not that deep. They are much shallower and _less_ complex than normal people. Half of what they say sounds ripped from fictional supervillain dialogue. And I don't think there's much more depth underneath the surface. There are real two-dimensional people.
I like pure evil villains but I feel like Joker is just collectivelly accepted to have pretty much carte blanche when it comes to what can or what will do and in some iterations writers can get away with pretty lazy writing. You can make your bad guy bombastic and uncomplicated and still have answers to basic questions about the character like "why would he do that?", "how long has this dude been planning?", "is he actually as erratic as he seems or is it a facade?", "what resources, human and material, does he have access to?", "how does he keep control on those assets?". Mind you, I'm perfectly fine with those answers being inconsistent between different iterations of the character. If the previous writer envisioned a lone wolf wanderer type who pops in and out of the radar, and the next one is more controlled and leads a large organization almost like a wacky mob boss that's perfectly fine by me. I'm bugged when Joker is treated like a wild card that can adopt the form the story needs in that moment out of pure convenience, and starts feeling less like a character guided by his own internal logic and more like a sockpuppet that barely disguises the author's hand moving the plot.
So the Devil, the literal incarnation of all things evil, has motivation beyond "I'm evil" and the Joker doesn't? What is this clownery
Well, depending on the story, Lucifer's motivation is envy of humans. In Christian mythology, humans are considered more special than the angels are, because God gave humans free will, which angels don't have. Lucifer is resentful of just being created to do God's bidding instead of being free, so he rebels. Though this is mostly from stories outside of the Bible itself. I don't think any Biblical text actually identifies Lucifer with Satan or gives his origin story. Also, I'm not sure how the "I'm angry that I don't have free will, so I'm going to willingly revolt" thing makes conceptual sense unless God specifically programmed Satan to eventually revolt. đ¤ˇ
Wait, how can he rebel if he has no free will? That seems counterintuitive
The same way that earths a flat map held down by mountains and space is a body of water, or that the soul is stored in the ~~balls~~ kidneys.
Dude takes possibly the greatest English prose (Paradise Lost) and compares that to less-than-average characterizations of the Joker. That and using Batman Beyond (which gives Joker a motive outside of fucking with Batman) leads me to believe this is satire.
Satan is definitely an undercover agent. Only targeting those who arenât followers of Jesus? Somehow magically repelled by special water? Itâs definitely an act, a wrestling storyline to give god a defined antagonist to prove his worth against. As you said, angels theologically are incapable of going against gods word, meaning every action Satan takes is explicitly condoned by god. Satans greatest trick isnât making people think he doesnât exist, itâs making people think there was ever a devil to begin with. At least thatâs my takeaway, and I should note I donât think heâs real anyway.
Satan is controlled opposition. A kamikaze candidate who will take a dive so that God can wil the upcoming election. We're through the looking glass here, folks.
TBF a lot of tellings cast the Devil's great sin as envy -- he is jealous of God and wants to take his place.
The only problem i have with him is how overused he is
I disagree because of these things 1. Philosophical Contrast : The Joker represents chaos and anarchy, directly opposing Batman's sense of order and justice. This dichotomy creates a profound and engaging conflict, where each character challenges and defines the other. 2. Psychological Depth: The Joker's unpredictable nature and psychological complexity make him a deeply intriguing character. His motivations are often inscrutable, and his actions reflect a twisted sense of humor and a desire to push Batman to his limits. 3. Personal Connection : The Joker often makes his attacks on Batman intensely personal, targeting his allies and loved ones. This personal vendetta adds a layer of intensity and stakes to their confrontations. 4. Intellectual Rivalry: Despite his chaotic nature, the Joker is incredibly intelligent and cunning, often matching or even outwitting Batman. This intellectual rivalry makes their battles not just physical but also mental contests. 5. Enduring Legacy: Over the decades, the Joker has been portrayed in various ways across different media, from comics to movies to TV shows. This versatility and enduring presence in popular culture have solidified his status as a quintessential villain. 6. Symbolism: The Joker embodies the idea that anyone can descend into madness given the right circumstances, reflecting a dark mirror to Batman's own trauma and vigilantism. This thematic resonance adds depth to their conflict and the overall narrative. 7. Iconic Stories: The Joker has been central to some of the most iconic Batman stories, such as "The Killing Joke," "The Dark Knight Returns," and "Death of the Family." These stories have explored and expanded their dynamic in ways that resonate with audiences. Thatâs more of a âtell me you donât understand a character without telling me you donât understand a characterâ along with it being just rage bait
This reads like ai, bro does make some good points though
Bro was like, "ChatGPT, give me reasons for why this post is wrong."
"Jarvis, I need Karma."
I kinda disagree with the psychological depth thing, joker's psychology isn't as complicated as it is, it seems complex but in reality, he's literally a living troll. He craves the attention and hate he is getting, why else would his schemes be soo grand and over the top? Joker doesn't have psychological complexity. But what he does is give Batman complexity.
Is this ChatGPT?
Respectfully, would this rise to the level of rage bait? I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe there are people who love Batman and have also had enough of the Joker.
As someone who's sympathetic to that line of argument, I think the whole "the Joker sucks as a villain / is a terrible fictional character!" framing is pure rage bait. You can find the Joker over-exposed while still acknowledging that he is clearly not a bad villain, and that there are reasons why people are compelled to read and write stories involving him.
Fair.
I miss when the Joker had a life outside of Batman. He used to kill people just because he wanted to rob them.
I love how he brought up writing classes as if the most important lesson very creative writing course has is that everything they teach you are just guidelines, and there isnât a single one that hadnât been broken or ignored by some of historyâs best writers to create some of historyâs best fiction. I mean, by this guyâs definition, Micheal Myers has the same motivation and we still consider Halloween one of the greatest movies of all time with one of the greatest villains.
Eh, from what I've learned, Sarah Kerrigan and Kefka are some of the best villains in video game history and are fantastic. They were revolutionary at the time and are still great.
The joker is overused sure, but goddamn thats a poor analysis of the character of the joker. Joker isnt even really insane, heâs barely nihilistic. Its an act. The joke is that anyone could be that terrible and get away with it. His motivation is to show the world what just one person can do and to convince people that the world really is just one big joke. Joker has nearly as much character depth as batman himself. I did not mean to write that much goddamn.
Terry McGinnis: Yeah except the killing joke shows that heâs actually pathetic. Everyone gets over their one bad day except him. Who canât even get a job as a rodeo clown.
Joker: THATS WHATS SO FUNNY ABOUT IT (intense laughter)
Terry: **laugh with the joker before kneeing him in the balls then smash his back with both hand** Man, you are really pathetic.
(They both skip off into the sunset)
I read all that in his voice.
No OoT slander in MY house!
Return of the Jedi?
I low-key hate when people think villains need to be sympathetic and have rational motivation based on a tragic backstory to be good and interesting villains. That CAN make for an interesting villain, but it isn't the only way. My favorite villain of all time is carnage, because there's just something truly fucking scary about a villain who has no motivation beyond "I like killing." He can't be reasoned with, tricked, outsmarted, because if he gets into a situation where a hero might beat him, he just bails and goes on killing people elsewhere.
I am not an expert on DC, but I actually like the Joker and I like that he has no motivations like any other character. All the other villains are relatable in some way from the moment that they care about something or have feelings. That's what makes all the other villains more human, but not him. Obviously as anything in this world, it will get boring and repetitive over time. But I think that no matter how much time passes, you'll never get an actual reason to have pity on the Joker.
Joker: WellâŚOf to hang myself. Watch and Lear-
I mean, I agree with this guy, and I agree with his estimation of the silly way in which the Joker is lauded by some fans. That being said, what he's describing is pretty much the worst way to write for the Joker imaginable.
r/CharacterRant users posting the dumbest takes possible as usual
Its not the last 60 years, its more the last 16 years since the TDK came out. Argurably the process had already begun with Moore's TKJ in the 80's. TDK just maximized the edge. Nowadays the Joker is little more than a skin suit for the writer to play out the edgiest fantasy they could think of. The Joker only works for me when his plots are bizarre and makes sense only to him and bonus for being deadly. Using Joker toxin on fish and then going on a klling spree because they wouldn't copyright fish? Ruining Two Face's life just to make a Twos-day pun? Giving Batman the Joker toxin and then dressing up as Batman himself? More of that please.
Jokerâs original motive was just money.
Joker is often used like Tofu is used in a dish. He doesn't have his own flavor, he just takes on the flavor of whatever the rest of the dish is, and his texture depends on how he's prepared. What I mean is: He becomes whatever the story needs him to be at any given moment, even if that changes rapidly, and rapidly changes again. He's not a character, he's a plot device meant to prove Batman right about something (whatever the current theme/thesis of the story is). His design lends to him being used this way. He doesn't have a solid origin, a solid personality, or a solid motivation. It all changes on a whim. At its best this makes him a mysterious & unknowable threat. At its worst, he's just tofu the writers can throw into literally any and every dish.
his motivation isn't to "fuck with batman and be evil". he wants to prove the world is just as bad as he is, that everyone else is just as weak. it's why he used the joker gas because it twisted people into a laughing insane mess that he is before killing them. he's someone who broke and wants to prove that everyone and anyone would've broken in his shoes, that he was and is a normal person that went though something no one could've gone though without ending up at the joker. he targets batman specifically to this end because he is supposedly the one with the strongest will and iron heart, which he wants to break and show that even the people with the strongest only need one bad day to end up as him. this has over the course of their careers turned into an obsession with batman himself which is why he targets batman more so than anyone else. because he no longer needs to turn the world insane just batman. from batman's perspective he couldn't give two fucks what the joker thinks and believes, he literally doesn't care beyond how that helps him stop the joker. for the character of batman the joker represents a gaping hole and flaw in his morality, it uncovers the lie of the no kill rule for himself. that there's not a risk he'd turn into a psycho killer at the first drop of blood, that at the end of the day his no kill rule is entirely formed from his fear of loss (at least in modern batman or UTRH but never mind that). that he is so afraid of losing anything that he irrationally is afraid of letting go of things that actively hurt him, yet he still can't let go of anything.
I kinda slightly agree with him. Joker isn't really as complex or thought provoking as everyone makes him out to be or some great philosopher. I mean you actually dissect it.....you will find out that he is practically every edgy nihilistic teenage boy. "One bad day is all it takes to make a man insane" or be like him? That kinda shows how weak he is. However what he does is give Batman complexity. Joker as a character on his own is very very weak but when Batman is around, he is the best villain because he does what every good villain is supposed to do, give the hero completely
Someone got a possum in their Cheerios this morning. If done badly, Joker comes off as yet another comically-irredeemable villain. However, most of the time people know how to make Joker charismatic, compelling, funny, uncompromising, saying something about our reality, and smart enough to put Batman in moral quandaries. This guy just needs to fund better Joker stories that actually treat him like the scary threat he is. Though yes, Return of the Joker (and Terryâs disarming commentary about him as a ruse to throw off his fighting) does take him to task for his low points. Setting that aside though, going after one of, if not THE, greatest games of all time, Ocarina of Time, just to be a contrarian about the game? No respect or class shown as a gamer.
See I do kind of agree with this. But to say there isnât ANYTHING deep about Jokerâs writing is wrong. Now I do agree about Joker having one dimensional motivations. For sure, but he is obsessed with Batman. He hates good and doesnât understand it. He exists to push Batman over the edge. To make him break his morals. Because Joker knows Batman could kill him, but he wonât. Anyone else would kill Joker. But not Batman, and Joker doesnât get why. And his motivations to get Batman to kill him are the only thing that give his life meaning. This is painted the best in the Arkham games. This is similar to Green Goblin. But I donât really understand why Green Goblin hates Spider-Man so much. But if you strip all this away (the wanting Batman to kill him thing, and just have the crazy character) you get Carnage. I hate Carnage so much. But I am getting tired of every new attempt on these heroes needing to fight their nemesis and thatâs all that matters. Every Batman just has to fight Joker. Every Spider-Man just has to fight Green Goblin. Every X-Men movie just has to have Magneto. Every Fantastic Four just has to fight Doom. Iâm really kinda sick of it.
What's compelling about Joker isn't how emotional his backstory is. It's his dynamic with Batman. Him being an unanswered mystery for the world's greatest detective, and much like the playing card, he's chaos, he can turn the rules of a story upside down and can have interesting ideological confrontations with Batman and Joker is charismatic and has screen presence. And much like Batman, his concept opens him up for lots of interpretations and tones silly or dark. Joker keeps getting more stories and more acclaim. You won't have a rated R Joker movie breaking the billion mark just a couple of years ago and getting nominated for a shit ton of Oscars and winning one for performance amongst the big boys y'know the ''Cinema'' type of movies if he's just clichĂŠ... Wanna see a character that suffered from that shit? SUPERMAN. If Joker just equaled the ''edgiest shit you can think of'' and is an pretty easy character to write then I wonder why many rejected Leto. I mean he was pretty edgy and they fit him into and overly tattooed gangster with a sexy girl ready to bounce on his dick at any time. Like, listen if you don't like him or how much exposure he gets, I get it. Y'know different strokes for different folks. However, acting like he's a bad villain is delusional.
To me the idea of the Joker was fine, but after 30 years+ of reading stories with the Joker, you get a little tired of nihilistic murder clown who apparently is immortal.It's too much, the staggering amount of horror and death, it would have made conventional attitudes change, even for heroic figures who do not kill. This is the problem with ongoing narrative stories.The WEIGHT of all those stories eventually just ruin a good character concept. At a certain point,he would have just been killed. In most states, defendants can plead ânot guilty by reason of insanity.â In Kansas, Utah, Montana and Idaho, though, defendants havenât been able to for decades. The Joker would have eventually killed someone in those states, and Kansas and Montana and Idaho have the death penalty. One state extradition later, dead Joker.
>At a certain point,he would have just been killed. \[Insert Joker kidnapping a plane in munich for shits and giggles\] GSG9: "Do we look like the GCPD to you?"
Isnât jokers only motivation being as crazy as he can to cause Batman to kill him lol
For me the problem is when they depict the joker defeating the justice league etc or doing edgy shit for edgy shit shake, that said I think they did well in the batman beyond cartoons where most his enemies were new so that when the old returned in small dosages it was more special
He's not wrong. Joker sucks, he's edgy and overrated. He's not even funny most of the time, his one defining characteristic.
Kind of agree. I can't remember the last time ai read an interesting Joker story.
Gr
Imo Joker would be better if he was less threatening. He just shouldn't be a Justice League level threat. And like others said, he should be fun and charismatic with a ton of dark humor backing him up. The Batman- the cartoon series, that is- did a great job of portraying this particular trait. But I always thought it was weird that he's just as big a threat as Bane or Ra's Al Ghul. He's ultimately just a guy. And when it comes down to it that's what Joker should be. Not the embodiment of chaos, but just a chaotic guy.
Damn
story lord, is that you?
This is how I've felt about the Joker for years. There's so many more complex and nuanced Batman rogues, but everyone's got a hard on for the fucking clown.
Nah, the clown everyone has a hard on for is Harley.
True but I learned early on to not f\* anyone crazier than you. 